S.148 notice issued after 6-year limitation period under unamended S.149 is invalid; reassessment quashed.

आदेश/ORDER

PER S.R.RAGHUNATHA, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [‘ld. CIT(A)’] dated 22.10.2025 and pertains to assessment year 2015 -16 against the order of the Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (AO) passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 17.01.2024.

2. The assessee has challenged the legality and validity of the assessment order passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 17.01.2024, as well as the addition u/s.68 and u/s. 69 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,23,04,678/- on the following grounds:

“1. The order of the CIT(A), confirming the additions u/s 68 and u/s.69 in an amount of Rs.1,23,04,678/- without giving sufficient opportunity, is contrary to law, erroneous and unsustainable on the facts of the case.

2. The CIT(A) failed to consider that the re -opening of assessment is bad in law.

3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that a loss as per accounts, leave little scope for escapement of income, warranting reopening.

4. The CIT(A) failed to consider that sufficient opportunity was not given both by the CIT(A) as well as Assessing Officer and hence the order dismissing the appeal is unsustainable in law as well as on facts.

5. The CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that the notices issued both by the CIT(A) and Assessing Officer were not received by the appellant and hence the dismissal of appeal was not justifiable on the facts of the case.

6. The Assessing Officer erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,23,04,678/- u/s.68 and u/s 69.

7. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that no defects were pointed out in the maintenance of accounts and in the absence of any defects the additions were unsustainable in law as well on facts.

8. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had not taken into consideration the totality of accounts, and taking the amounts in isolation and demanding explanation dehors the accounts was not justifiable on the facts of the case.

9. The CIT(A), in any view of the matter, ought to have accepted the case of the assessee giving due regard to the accounts of the assessee reflecting business – receipts (part of the turnover) should have and deleted the additions in the entirety.”

3. The brief facts of the case emanating from the records of the assessee are that the assessee is a firm and had not filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year 2015-16. The case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information available in accordance with the Risk Management Strategy formulated by CBDT that the assessee had made time deposits of Rs.1,03,83,161/- and deposited cash of Rs.2,50,000/- in bank during the year under consideration. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer passed an order u/s.148A(d) of the Act and thereafter a notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 04.04.2022. The assessee was issued various statutory notices from time to time, seeking necessary details, explanations and supporting evidence regarding the deposits reflected in the bank statement. The assessee in compliance filed furnished a copy of the bank statement of the impugned year, reflecting cash deposits of Rs.2,30,29,176/- and along with other credits of Rs.3,32,81,825/-, thereby resulting in a total sum of Rs.5,63,11,001/-. In its reply, the assessee submitted that all such credits represent sale proceeds from business activities. However, as per the Profit and Loss Account and return of income filed, the total sales declared by the